Trump says he would impose term limits for members of Congress

[Two Thumbs]

Trump says he would impose term limits for members of Congress

Donald Trump has said he would use the US presidency to impose term limits on members of Congress as part of a drive to “drain the swamp” of Washington corruption.

Currently, House members can serve an unlimited number of two-year terms, while senators can serve an unlimited number of six-year terms. The Republican candidate told cheering supporters in Grand Junction, Colorado, that he would push for a constitutional amendment.

he can do that all he wants, however I can assure you, not one of those people are going to write the bill that ensures their unemployment, let alone for for it.

 

[Southern Dad]

No I want term limits to stop the cronyism that comes from lifelong politicians.

You want term limits because you can't beat the candidate at the ballot box so you want to use laws to disqualify him or her from being a choice for the voters. If you can't win at the ballot box, change the rules.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Constitutional term limits would prevent an ocean of corruption. I strongly favor it.

Like I've said Constitutional Term Limits only do one thing, take a choice away from the voters. Why do you support less choice for voters?

Because it would prevent an ocean of corruption. Don't hear well, eh?

 

[Southern Dad]

Constitutional term limits would prevent an ocean of corruption. I strongly favor it.

Like I've said Constitutional Term Limits only do one thing, take a choice away from the voters. Why do you support less choice for voters?

Because it would prevent an ocean of corruption. Don't hear well, eh?

No, it simply removes a choice from the voters. That's it. Many states have term limits on governors. How many of them have been found to be corrupt? I think Illinois has two governors currently serving time.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Constitutional term limits would prevent an ocean of corruption. I strongly favor it.

Like I've said Constitutional Term Limits only do one thing, take a choice away from the voters. Why do you support less choice for voters?

Because it would prevent an ocean of corruption. Don't hear well, eh?

No, it simply removes a choice from the voters. That's it. Many states have term limits on governors. How many of them have been found to be corrupt?

We've got one in Virginia right now.

 

[Care4all]

It's the gerrymandering that is the problem.

Gerrymandering the district's is what makes their seats secure....it's cheating the citizens out of their vote for representation....

Interesting theory but that's all it is, a theory. If that was the case, how do you explain the Senators? Are the states gerrymandered? Are the state borders moved to protect Senate seats? No, they aren't.

Correct, senators have 6yr terms, three times a congressional term.

But senators do not have the power of the purse, they represent their State's interest.

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

 

[Southern Dad]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

 

[OldLady]

"Trump says he would impose term limits for members of Congress"

Trump is wrong yet again.

We already have term limits – they’re called elections.

The people have the fundamental right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

Real, substantive change can occur only at the very local level, not from the top down, and not by ridiculous gimmicks such as ‘term limits.’

I think term limits are a sensible idea, for this reason: Politicians are sometimes reluctant to vote on a controversial topic or to stand behind a controversial issue on one side or the other because they are worried about their re-election chances. That's why immigration reform and gun rights legislation has never gotten anywhere for decades. We can't eliminate that re-election phenom entirely, but if house and senate leaders were elected for six year terms (there is a pretty high learning curve in the first term, yes?--they are complicated issues) and limited to two terms, with a process for the electorate to take up a no-confidence vote if they became exceedingly unhappy with someone during the long term, I think that would be fair. And the second term, the leader would be less adverse to taking a risk and making a stand.
Is that wrong?

 

[Care4all]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

 

[Southern Dad]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

 

[Care4all]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

It was done right before Kay Granger took the seat...

After Congressman Pete Geren announced he would retire in 1996, both the Democratic and Republican parties worked to recruit Granger to run for his seat. Republicans were bullish on their chances of winning Texas' 12th congressional district. It had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, but legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents.

you are right, Sarbanes was not a good example...

And NO, I do not believe there should be term limits. I believe we have the right to decide on who represents us...

I do believe there should be no gerrymandering allowed, and allowing an algorithm to set the districts would help in reducing the terms of congress critters or in the least, allow the citizens a true voice.

 

[Southern Dad]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

It was done right before Kay Granger took the seat...

After Congressman Pete Geren announced he would retire in 1996, both the Democratic and Republican parties worked to recruit Granger to run for his seat. Republicans were bullish on their chances of winning Texas' 12th congressional district. It had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, but legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents.

you are right, Sarbanes was not a good example...

And NO, I do not believe there should be term limits. I believe we have the right to decide on who represents us...

I do believe there should be no gerrymandering allowed, and allowing an algorithm to set the districts would help in reducing the terms of congress critters or in the least, allow the citizens a true voice.

Gerrymandering is part of the process. See, those that control the state legislature get to draw the lines. Elections have consequences.

 

[Slashsnake]

On this I disagree with Donald J Trump. Term limits do nothing but take a choice away from the voters. If the voters want them out, they'll vote them out. We don't need our choices limited.

The American people have done a very poor job voting for anyone over the last 16 years.

We have people like Hank Johnson in congress... Enough said. Who would vote for that joker? It'd be great to have term limits on congress to get rid of weasels like him.

 

[Desperado]

Outstanding!!!
It is something that needed to be done to end career politicians.

 

[2aguy]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

It was done right before Kay Granger took the seat...

After Congressman Pete Geren announced he would retire in 1996, both the Democratic and Republican parties worked to recruit Granger to run for his seat. Republicans were bullish on their chances of winning Texas' 12th congressional district. It had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, but legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents.

you are right, Sarbanes was not a good example...

And NO, I do not believe there should be term limits. I believe we have the right to decide on who represents us...

I do believe there should be no gerrymandering allowed, and allowing an algorithm to set the districts would help in reducing the terms of congress critters or in the least, allow the citizens a true voice.

We need term limits to protect us from other states Senators and Representatives.....if they keep electing criminals because they steal tax money and bring it back to their states...we need a check on their ability to keep sending the crooks back to congress....

 

[PredFan]

That is just one of the things I disagree with Trump on. Plus, I don't think it's within his power to do that.

 

[Southern Dad]

Gerrymandering is what strips us citizens of our right to elect our representation fairly, and secures the seats of our Congress critters spending all that money of ours...for a lifetime...

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

It was done right before Kay Granger took the seat...

After Congressman Pete Geren announced he would retire in 1996, both the Democratic and Republican parties worked to recruit Granger to run for his seat. Republicans were bullish on their chances of winning Texas' 12th congressional district. It had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, but legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents.

you are right, Sarbanes was not a good example...

And NO, I do not believe there should be term limits. I believe we have the right to decide on who represents us...

I do believe there should be no gerrymandering allowed, and allowing an algorithm to set the districts would help in reducing the terms of congress critters or in the least, allow the citizens a true voice.

We need term limits to protect us from other states Senators and Representatives.....if they keep electing criminals because they steal tax money and bring it back to their states...we need a check on their ability to keep sending the crooks back to congress....

I understand, you want to take choices away from the votes because you don't like the choices that the voters are making. Will you later support people who say that we can't elect any white people because there are too many white senators? Will you support people who say we can't elect any more men because there are too many men in the senate? Where is the line? You want to take a choice away from the voter because you dislike who they pick.

 

[2aguy]

Back that up. If that is really your belief you should have no trouble showing us some gerrymandered districts and a career politician that is in that district serving long terms. Democrats control 9 of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. Maryland ranks one of the highest in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats redrew the lines in 2012. The MD-3 is Maryland's most gerrymandered district. John Sarbanes represents it. He's been in the House since 2007. Of course, the Maryland districts were gerrymandered under the Republicans who drew the lines in 2001, as well.

Take my challenge and back up your statement. Find a couple House seats where gerrymandering has stripped the US citizens of the right to elect representation fairly and secured the seat of a Congress critter. Are you supporting Donald J Trump? If you want term limits, he's the only one that seems on board with it.

Whoa Nellie! Calm down...your screeching is nearly unbearable.... we are having a discussion, or debate, and not some spitting contest, for goodness sake!

Kay Granger for one, Sarbanes as another....

Gerrymandering is DONE for a pure political reason....on BOTH sides of the aisle....thus the name's meaning.

Are you actually taking the position that Gerrymandering seats in the House is not silencing the votes of citizens who normally would have a chance for their vote to actually count?

And not keeping congress critters in seats that they probably could not keep, without the gerrymandering?

How exactly do you feel that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering? The Texas 12th which she represents has had its boundaries changed in 2013. Kay held the office from 1997 - present. Prior to that it was held by two Democrats going back to 1955. Her district is now 86% urban. That really doesn't benefit Republicans. You trotted this out as an example. I'm interested how do you figure that Kay Granger has benefited from gerrymandering. She won in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with one set of boundaries, then after the district changed she won in 2014. Do you contend that she would have lost in 2014 without this change to her district boundaries? She won with over 70% of the vote. As a matter of fact she has won in 2012 with 71% and 2010 with 67%.

Go ahead explain how gerrymandering caused her to keep power. Because I think that she kept power because the voters want her to represent them.

John Sarbanes district? The boundaries were the same from 2003 to 2013. He won in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 with those boundaries. They were changed in 2013 and he won again in 2014. He won with 57% of the vote in 2014. Do you think he would have lost if the district boundaries remained the same as 2012?

It was done right before Kay Granger took the seat...

After Congressman Pete Geren announced he would retire in 1996, both the Democratic and Republican parties worked to recruit Granger to run for his seat. Republicans were bullish on their chances of winning Texas' 12th congressional district. It had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, but legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents.

you are right, Sarbanes was not a good example...

And NO, I do not believe there should be term limits. I believe we have the right to decide on who represents us...

I do believe there should be no gerrymandering allowed, and allowing an algorithm to set the districts would help in reducing the terms of congress critters or in the least, allow the citizens a true voice.

We need term limits to protect us from other states Senators and Representatives.....if they keep electing criminals because they steal tax money and bring it back to their states...we need a check on their ability to keep sending the crooks back to congress....

I understand, you want to take choices away from the votes because you don't like the choices that the voters are making. Will you later support people who say that we can't elect any white people because there are too many white senators? Will you support people who say we can't elect any more men because there are too many men in the senate? Where is the line? You want to take a choice away from the voter because you dislike who they pick.

Nope.....you are wrong and racism has nothing to do with it. We have checks and balances in our Constitution to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of one part of the government. Term limits would limit the ammount of power any one member of congress could accumulate. Nothing in Term limits creates the situation you are proposing...since it does not discriminate by race, religion, sex, or any other factor...anyone can serve the term and then leave...but nice try at racist accusations.....

We in Illinois are living under the rule of mike madigan, who has been in office 30 years...a white guy twit....and he has ruined the state, and we can't get rid of him because of all the power he has...he is the shadow governor...he keeps getting re-elected because he is in a secure district....we are not protected from his predation....term limits would ensure he never had that power.

 

[esthermoon]

Trump says he would impose term limits for members of Congress

Donald Trump has said he would use the US presidency to impose term limits on members of Congress as part of a drive to “drain the swamp” of Washington corruption.

Currently, House members can serve an unlimited number of two-year terms, while senators can serve an unlimited number of six-year terms. The Republican candidate told cheering supporters in Grand Junction, Colorado, that he would push for a constitutional amendment.

This is not a bad idea because politics should be a service to people and not a job!
But I don't think he would achieve this target!
Nobody want to lose his political career

 

[ChrisL]

There was at LEAST one congressman who admitted that the longer a congressperson remains in congress, the more corrupt they are apt to become. Term limits, yes.